Published in Inroads, the newsletter of Citizen Advocacy Eastern Suburbs, Issue 4 (July - September, 1996)
These are located on the Citizen Advocacy Network website,
in the section on articles and policy documents.
The Key Activities of the Citizen Advocacy Office.
It would be true to suggest that the central elements of the work of a citizen advocacy programme -- recruiting proteges and advocates, matching them, and supporting the relationship -- appear deceptively simple. However, even though it may be easy to describe the essential practices of the citizen advocacy office, in reality, there are many complexities and nuances to introducing and supporting people in a way which leads to the formation and sustainment of a suitable match.
Because the implications of some aspects of Citizen Advocacy are subtle, a citizen advocacy programme which is not vigilant in its conduct may engage in actions that can -- however unwittingly -- yield outcomes which are inconsistent with the goals of Citizen Advocacy. For example, in implementing the key office activities (see above), a programme must recognise and reconcile certain tensions which have the potential to undermine the distinctive character of Citizen Advocacy.
In examining the nature of these tensions, it is important to emphasise that they do not arise from any intrinsically contradictory or incompatible elements of the concept of Citizen Advocacy, but from potentially competing dynamics which co-exist in the routine undertaking of the key activities of the citizen advocacy programme. Listed below are the kinds of inherent tensions which the staff of Citizen Advocacy must (and, with conscious application, can) balance carefully. The examples provided -- far from exhausting the list of conceivable scenarios -- are merely intended to demonstrate that, in implementing the key office activities, a citizen advocacy programme must walk a tightrope at all times.
1. In protege recruitment: Getting to know people with disabilities who need advocacy, without appearing (to them) to be the advocate.
It is the role of the citizen advocacy office to recruit people with disabilities who have advocacy needs, and which can be addressed by ordinary citizens. Recruitment necessitates getting to know something about the life of the person with the disability; to identify: important aspects of the person’s identity, his/her fundamental and/or urgent needs, and the initial advocacy role of the citizen advocate to be recruited specifically for that person.
The citizen advocacy office staff, then, must invest sufficient time gathering the necessary information, principally by meeting with the protege, but not spend an inordinate amount of time with the person. Otherwise, that person may believe or hope that the staff of Citizen Advocacy are the advocates. This is particularly apt to happen if the person has intense relationship needs -- which may be precisely why the citizen advocacy programme has made a commitment to recruit an advocate for him/her. Consequently, even if the citizen advocacy office staff have explicitly communicated their role vis-a-vis that of the advocate, and even if the person clearly understands the distinction, as a recipient of (perhaps hitherto neglected) attention and kindness from office staff, that person may come to rely on them for some of his/her relationship needs -- particularly if contact continues over a sustained period.
Clearly, given that the role of the citizen advocacy office staff is to recruit -- rather than become -- advocates, they must be mindful of the implications of their actions during contact with proteges.
2. In advocate recruitment: Asking citizens to become advocates, without lapsing into indiscriminate recruitment.
The citizen advocacy programme seeks to facilitate suitable matches: that is, those relationships in which there is a good "fit" between the needs and interests of the protege and the role and resources of the citizen advocate. In recruiting advocates, the citizen advocacy office staff must be driven by the faith that there are committed people who, when asked, will respond to the needs of people with disabilities.
At the same time, however, the office must be responsible and prudent about such recruitment. After all, (a) not everyone is suited to becoming a citizen advocate -- in other words, some people should not be asked to assume any advocacy role; and (b) some people will (only) be effective if they are discerningly asked to assume relevant advocacy roles which are responsive to the needs and interests of specific proteges.
If citizen advocacy office staff are indiscriminate in the recruitment of advocates, they are clearly abrogating their responsibility for proper matching. For example, if citizen advocacy office staff passively accept anyone and everyone, rather than approaching principled citizens with appropriate abilities, or if office staff’s modus operandi of recruitment includes repeatedly asking those who have previously declined involvement (which, to me, is tantamount to begging or harassing people), then a suitable match which is beneficial to the protege will not be the eventual outcome.
If there is to be a growing number of effective and enduring relationships, the citizen advocacy programme must continue to seek advocates for people with disabilities -- but without diluting or degrading its advocate recruitment practice.
3. In advocate orientation and ongoing training: Informing and preparing citizens to act as effective advocates, without professionalising their roles.
Members of the community are recruited as advocates on the understanding that they will undergo orientation (usually, pre- and post-match), and will be provided with opportunities for ongoing training in the course of their relationship. The purpose of orientation, the format of which comprises information-imparting and dialogue, is intended to provide citizen advocates with a clear and firm foundation from which to begin their advocacy role. Furthermore, periodic training or information sessions, which are optional, can also serve to consolidate advocates’ knowledge and commitment.
Nonetheless, the citizen advocacy office staff must strive to ensure that the type, quality, and amount of information provided does not result in the transformation of the recipients of the "training" (ordinary citizens) into quasi -human service staff. Otherwise, the essence of Citizen Advocacy -- members of the community responding to the fundamental needs of their follow citizens with disabilities in ways which are typical and natural -- will be destroyed. Moreover, mandatory training which is clinical or technological in nature will enshroud the helping process in an aura of mystique, encouraging the mistaken view that some level of formal "qualification" must be attained by citizens -- in addition to, or maybe even instead of, their innate pre-existing abilities -- if they are to be involved in the lives of people with disabilities.
Consequently, in the process of resourcing the advocates, the citizen advocacy office staff must be careful not to mystify or "denaturalise" their role.
4. In follow-along and support: Maintaining contact with and supporting advocates, without directing the relationship.
An important post-match office function is the maintenance of contact with, and provision of support to, (primarily) citizen advocates. Regular contact or follow-along is undertaken routinely, and is often a prelude to identifying, or responding to, the need for support. Support should be readily offered and provided, but not imposed.
Whilst it is recognised that follow-along and support are important in strengthening relationships to endure and to realise their potential, these activities must be implemented in a manner which does not undermine the independence of matches. Otherwise stated, in the course of providing follow-along and support, citizen advocacy programme staff must guard against directing or controlling the relationships -- which are, after all, independent of the programme. Even if there is no overt control of relationships, citizen advocacy office staff must nevertheless be mindful of subtle influences they can wield in their contact with advocates. For example, if citizen advocacy office staff appear to be "the experts" -- the source of infallible information and insight -- then the advocates are unlikely to act independently in the perceived interests of their proteges, on those occasions where their perception (of what is the appropriate course of action) differs from that of the seemingly omniscient citizen advocacy office.
The challenge of the citizen advocacy office, therefore, is to maintain contact with and support advocates in ways which do not -- directly or obliquely -- usurp their independent role.
5. In implementation of all key activities: Functioning like a professional organisation, without being unduly formal or bureaucratic.
Citizen Advocacy is separate from, and does not identify with, agencies which provide direct services (such as accommodation and employment services) to people with disabilities. Typically, the practices of such service-providing agencies are characterised by a high level of formality and bureaucracy. Citizen Advocacy, in contrast, is a largely informal, community-oriented vehicle for social action. Nonetheless, the citizen advocacy office, with its paid staff, must systematically and professionally -- even if less formally -- conduct its work.
Hence, on the one hand, given the nature of Citizen Advocacy, office staff must take care not to mirror the practices of service-providing agencies (for example, gathering and storing voluminous documentation, particularly of a clinical nature, about proteges). Still, the citizen advocacy office should not be intemperate in efforts to immunise itself against the contagion of a perceived formal culture, to the point of shunning any semblance of "the establishment" (for example, never holding any advocate orientations in the office because it is too "official"). The citizen advocacy office, after all, is a bona fide organisation which must operate in an ordered and structured way in arranging and supporting relationships -- Citizen Advocacy does not happen spontaneously or fortuitously.
Thus, in its conduct, a citizen advocacy programme must be guided by a reasonable and realistic perception of its identity, whilst eluding the practices and image of the formal service system.
The existence of the sorts of tensions mentioned above is a reminder of the precarious path along which a citizen advocacy programme must travel if it is to remain true to its work. A citizen advocacy programme which acknowledges the reality of these tensions will be more focused on maintaining its balance as it walks the tightrope of undertaking the key activities.